The Morning Plum

By
Greg Sargent

* Obama voices strong support for Wisconsin public employees: With the standoff continuing to rage over Governor Scott Walker's push to strip public employees of bargaining rights, Obama has now waded into the debate, denouncing Walker's proposal as an "assault on unions."

In an interview with local WTMJ-TV which is now up online, Obama said we all need to "make some adjustments to new fiscal realities," but insisted it's important not to "vilify" public employees and described them as "our neighbors, our friends":

"Some of what I've heard coming out of Wisconsin, where you're just making it harder for public employees to collectively bargain generally seems like more of an assault on unions. And I think it's very important for us to understand that public employees, they're our neighbors, they're our friends. These are folks who are teachers and they're firefighters and they're social workers and they're police officers.

"They make a lot of sacrifices and make a big contribution. And I think it's important not to vilify them or to suggest that somehow all these budget problems are due to public employees."

Obama's comments -- which put him squarely in opposition to the right's ongoing campaign to scapegoat public workers for our economic woes -- could draw more national media attention to a story that's mostly unfolded so far online.

* South Dakota shelves "justifiable homicide" bill: The state legislature has now indefinitely postponed plans for a vote on that bill making homicide justifiable to defend the life of the unborn in some cases, and may drop it entirely. I reported here yesterday that its author was reconsidering the plan.

It's interesting to consider that if it hadn't been for blogs and new media, this bill could very well have become law, though it's still unclear what real-world legal consequences that would have had.

* Bad week for culture war veterans? Amy Sullivan sums it up: "Between this and the whole redefining rape kerfuffle, it's turning out to be a bad p.r. month for culture warriors."

* Tea Party shows signs of ideological consistency: It turns out the defeat of the $450 million for an alternative fighter jet engine, which House Speaker John Boenher wanted because it benefits his state, was fueled by many Tea Party House GOP freshman, suggesting they may continue making life difficult for GOP leaders on spending.

* GOP punting "entitlement reforms" back to Obama's side of the field? Jake Sherman notes that many Republicans who are slamming Obama for sidestepping "entitlement reforms" are simultaneously ducking coming up with ideas of their own, another sign of how reluctant both sides are to take the first step on to this treacherous political turf.

* But Paul Ryan may take that first step: He assures Politico that Republicans will indeed unveil plans for "comprehensive" reforms to Medicare and Medicaid, vowing to lead where the president failed, suggesting Republicans may take up the White House's challenge to make the first move.

* Only crazy hippie lefties think government spending is the answer: Interesting big-picture read from Dan Froomkin: Those who argue that more spending is the way out of the recession have been entirely marginalized in Washington discourse, meeting the same fat as those who warned against the Iraq invasion.

* Obama changing the politics of deficit reduction? Relatedly, E.J. Dionne argues that it's refreshing to see Obama refusing to fall for the usual Beltway "deficit hawk" chump bait by continuing to insist that new revenues, not just cuts, are crucial to bringing down the deficit. Dionne hopes that in so doing, Obama will succeed in "changing the politics of deficit reduction."

I'd only add that a great deal of Obama's legacy on this front will turn on whether he makes good on his vow to aggressively re-litigate the fight over the Bush tax cuts for the rich.

It's unclear how this plays into the politics of the spending and "entitlements" standoff, but here's a key detail: "The Social Security system is on firmer financial footing than other major entitlement programs and raises political sensitivities that lawmakers want to deal with separately."

* Pete King caught between demagoguery and buffoonery: A funny take from Alex Pareene on why King's hearings into Muslims "may end up being slightly less hysterical than they sounded when he proposed the idea."

* And Michele Bachmann, on whether Obama is a citizen and a Christian: Bachmann on ABC News: "We should take the president at his word."

Hard not to notice that we've been hearing this precise phrasing an awful lot lately.

-- Obama's comments -- which put him squarely in opposition to the right's ongoing campaign to scapegoat public workers for our economic woes -- could draw more national media attention to a story that's mostly unfolded so far online. --

Kudos to Obama. Now maybe he can give Andrew Cuomo a call and ask him to stop vilifying public employees.

Or maybe it's past time for New York's public employees to cripple downtown Albany with a little march on the governors mansion so as to give Andy a little wake up call.

I always enjoyed Froomkin's work and him leaving was a big loss for WaPo.

As for the "we'll take him at his word" I wonder if Dems can turn that around on Republicans next time they call Obama a liar or say they don't think he'll follow up on something he says he will.

You do have to admire their ability to stay on message and adopt a universal response to birthers that is ambiguous and open to interpretation. And you have to despise what appears to be the lack of follow-up questions by a complicit press.

Every month is a bad pr month for culture warriors. They don't care. Zealots just don't care what the public thinks, they are on a mission from God, you can see their handiwork all over Iran these days.

Yeah, kudos to Froomkin. Just a reminder how completely wrongheaded this deficits argument is. The big problem is the unemployment. The time to have worried about deficits was BEFORE we had the black President. It's yet another testament to how good the GOP is at their messaging and changing the argument. (Yeah, I know the Conservatives will insist that I'm elitist by assuming that the middle class voters want to have jobs, but so be it.)

"Live ammunition being used against demonstrators in Bayda, East of Benghazi." BBC

Meanwhile, The US military, which has a navy base in Bahrain, calls for restraint from all sides, with Pentagon spokesman Colonel Dave Lapan describing the monarchy as a "long-time ally" and "important partner". Oh great, it is always nice to see us on the right side of history.

Some good news..."real change may be on the way in Egypt: defence official Maj Gen Mokhtaar Mullah says there will be "no presidential candidate from the military establishment in upcoming presidential elections."

[Greg sneers: "Fox spends far more time than any other network warning viewers about the impending sharia law takeover, the global caliphate, homegrown jihad, and other varieties of Islamophobic paranoia."]

So Greg found yet another progressive to disagree with Fox viewers on Muslim intentions?

"...Majorities agree with nearly all of al Qaeda's goals to change U.S. behavior in the Muslim world, to promote Islamist governance, and to preserve and affirm Islamic identity."

=====
Translated: The vast majority of Muslims differ with Al-Qaeda on the means, not on the ends.

Here is a pdf of the full report.
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/feb09/STARTII_Feb09_rpt.pdf

See especially pages 27 through 30: "Islamist Groups and Shari'a." On page 27, the report says: "The Islamist goal of giving Shari'a a larger role in Islamic society is viewed positively."

And on page 29: "In Egypt 81 percent said they agreed with the al Qaeda goal of "requir[ing] a strict application of Shari'a law in every Islamic country" (65% strongly); only 12 percent disagreed. Pakistanis were similar with 76 percent agreeing with this goal (52% strongly); 5 percent disagreed. Indonesians, however, agreed by only a narrow plurality: 49 percent supported the goal (just 14% strongly), while 42 percent disagreed. In Morocco in late 2006, 76 percent agreed."

[Greg sneers: "Fox spends far more time than any other network warning viewers about the impending sharia law takeover, the global caliphate, homegrown jihad, and other varieties of Islamophobic paranoia."]

So Greg found yet another progressive to disagree with Fox viewers on Muslim intentions?

"...Majorities agree with nearly all of al Qaeda's goals to change U.S. behavior in the Muslim world, to promote Islamist governance, and to preserve and affirm Islamic identity."

=====
Translated: The vast majority of Muslims differ with Al-Qaeda on the means, not on the ends.

Here is a pdf of the full report.
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/feb09/STARTII_Feb09_rpt.pdf

See especially pages 27 through 30: "Islamist Groups and Shari'a." On page 27, the report says: "The Islamist goal of giving Shari'a a larger role in Islamic society is viewed positively."

And on page 29: "In Egypt 81 percent said they agreed with the al Qaeda goal of "requir[ing] a strict application of Shari'a law in every Islamic country" (65% strongly); only 12 percent disagreed. Pakistanis were similar with 76 percent agreeing with this goal (52% strongly); 5 percent disagreed. Indonesians, however, agreed by only a narrow plurality: 49 percent supported the goal (just 14% strongly), while 42 percent disagreed. In Morocco in late 2006, 76 percent agreed."

On to the real news of the day, the AP reports, "the Moroccan teenager at the center of a prostitution scandal that has sent Italian Premier Silvio Berlusconi to trial says she has done nothing wrong and that "all the gold in the world would not be enough" to compensate her for the hurt she has suffered."

Oh Ruby, how could you ask for money from that nice man? Poor guy, give him a break, he is 57 years older than you.

Ruby "lamented that she has been "treated as a prostitute by all the Italian and foreign media."

We shouldn't take Obama at his word regarding citizenship. Official state documents, on the other hand, are fine. Not to mention the fact that his mother was an American citizen, making him one by birth regardless of where he was born.

"right's ongoing campaign to scapegoat public workers for our economic woes." fox news negative portrayal of all things islamic from mosques to sharia law to the muslim brotherhood to the left's tree hugging, dirt loving socialist standing for unions more spending on job creation and increased revenue as the only true way out of our deficit, have all been gleefully covered to the point of legitimizing and marginalizing any thought, fact or history other than their own.

"Michele Bachmann, on whether Obama is a citizen and a Christian: Bachmann on ABC News: 'We should take the president at his word.'"

Now how in the name of what makes sense does it make sense that we should put the onus on president Obama to verify his citizenship? I mean, it's not like he can remember where he was born, right? He has to rely on the same Hawaiian authorities same as we do, no?

How would a union stop JoeCorporation from moving jobs overseas when asking for decent wages/benefits doesn't really mean much when you can pay some poor guy two bucks an hour? Unions aint the problem here, folks.

It is interesting that Walker and the WI Repubs left police and fire unions out of the legislation to strip public workers of their bargaining rights. I would hope that the WI police and fire unions are currently SUPPORTING their co-public employees in their fight to throttle this legislation?

The WI Senate Dems walked out of the Senate, leaving the body without a quorum to proceed. Will the Republicans turn the WI State Police into "thugs" and have them retrieve these members? Hopefully, WI State Police (i.e., public employees) will refuse this request in solidarity of the others?

Seems to me the "Let's take the president at his word" Birtherism dodge is a way to keep the issue in the realm of opinion, so those who DON'T trust Obama can continue to believe what they want. Please notice this phrasing is always used near comments in which the speaker refuses to call out others for spreading this malicious BS.

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.